Prabhjot Kaur vs. The State Of Punjab

REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
2025 INSC 479
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO(S)._______________ OF 2025
[@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NO(S). 17747 OF 2023]
PRABHJOT KAUR …APPELLANT
Versus
STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS. …RESPONDENT(S)
J U D G M E N T
SUDHANSHU DHULIA, J.
1.
Leave granted.
2.
By way of the present appeal, the appellant challenges an order of the
Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court at
Chandigarh passed on 18.07.2023.
3.
This appeal involves the question of reservations of posts in the
government services of the State of Punjab; including reservation for
women. It is necessary here to elaborate upon some essential facts
of this case in order to better appreciate the controversy before us.
These facts are as follows:
a.
On the basis of a requisition issued by the State government
on 17.04.2020, the Respondent no. 4-Punjab Public Service
Commission ( ‘Public Service Commission’ ) issued
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
Jayant Kumar Arora
Date: 2025.04.09
18:20:56 IST
Reason:
advertisement no. 08 on 04.06.2020 for recruitment to 77
posts in the State government services through the Punjab

State Civil Services Combined Competitive Examination-2020.
This included the 26 posts of Deputy Superintendent of Police
( ‘DSP’ ) with which we are presently concerned. The
preliminary examination was tentatively scheduled for
September 2020 while the last date for submitting online
applications was fixed as 30.06.2020.
b.
In this advertisement, which is advertisement no.08, some
seats were reserved for members of the SC community. For
our purposes, it is relevant that a total of two vacancies were
advertised for ‘Scheduled Caste Sports’-one for DSP and the
other for Deputy Superintendent (Jails)/District Probation
Officer (‘DSJ/DPO’).
c.
Respondent no. 5 herein (‘private respondent’) applied in the
‘Scheduled Caste Sports’ category on 09.06.2020. Appellant
too had applied as SC Sports candidate.
d.
Meanwhile, on 21.10.2020, the Punjab Civil Services
(Reservation of Posts for Women) Rules, 2020 (‘2020 Rules’)
were made and notified.
e.
These Rules are applicable to all posts to be filled by direct
recruitment in all government establishments in Groups A, B,
C, D services, and importantly it provided for 33% reservation
for women in all posts. Under the 2020 Rules, this reservation
is to be horizontal and compartmentalized, which means
reservation within each category of Scheduled Castes,

Scheduled Tribes, Backward Classes, Other Backward
Classes, Economically Weaker Sections, and Open Category.
Sub-rule 5 of the 2020 Rules provides for the procedure for
reservation of posts.
f.
In light of the notification of the 2020 Rules, the State
government withdrew its requisition dated 17.04.2020, on
which was based the advertisement no.08 dated 04.06.2020,
which was issued by the Public Service Commission. The
reason being that now a fresh requisition would have to be
now issued in compliance with the 2020 Rules, which
mandated 33% reservation for women. As a result, on
08.12.2020, the State government wrote to the Public Service
Commission asking for the withdrawal of advertisement no.08
dated 04.06.2020 (a public notice with respect to withdrawal
of the advertisement no.08 was issued by the Public Service
Commission on the very next day i.e. 09.12.2020).
g.
On 11.12.2020, the Public Service Commission issued a new
advertisement which is advertisement no.14. However, there
was a material difference when it comes to reservations for the
‘SC Sports’ category. This time, only one post for ‘SC Sports’
was available, but this was now for the post of Deputy
Superintendent (Jails)/DPO. Thereafter, one DSP post was
reserved for ‘SC Sports (Women)’, a category which was

created pursuant to the 2020 Rules.
h. It is pertinent to note that in accordance with the decision
taken to avoid undue inconvenience to such candidates who
had applied earlier under the previous advertisement no.08
(04.06.2020), it was decided that such candidates need not
apply afresh under the new advertisement no.14 (11.12.2020),
and their earlier applications would be considered.
i.
The last date for submitting applications in terms of fresh
advertisement no.14 was 30.12.2020.
j.
On 29.12.2020, an amendment was made to the 2020 Rules
which provided for 33% reservation for women as per the
roster system contained in ‘Annexure A’.
k.
Pursuant to the amendment, the State government issued a
100-point roster for different reserved posts in the State
government services on 29.01.2021.
l.
After successful completion of the Punjab State Civil Services
Combined Competitive Examination-2020, the results were
declared on 18.06.2021.
m.
In the merit list, the private respondent stood 1st amongst
males, while the appellant stood 1st amongst females, under
the ‘SC Sports’ category.
n.
On 14.10.2021, the private respondent made a representation
to the Chief Minister of Punjab, alleging that the DSP post for
‘SC Sports’ should not have been reserved for women, and
that this is in violation of the roster issued by the State
government on 29.01.2021.

o.
The private respondent then filed a Writ Petition before the
High Court praying for quashing of the advertisement no.14
dated 11.12.2020, not in its entirety, but only to the extent
that it reserved the DSP post under the ‘SC Sports’ category
for women, in violation of the roster of 29.01.2021, and
further praying for directions to the State government to
appoint the private respondent as DSP against the ‘SC Sports’
seat.
p.
An interim order passed on 16.12.2021 in the Writ Petition
filed by the private respondent recorded that the counselling
for the post of DSP ‘SC Sports (Woman)’ seat was kept in
abeyance by the State. Aggrieved by this, the appellant also
filed a Writ Petition before the High Court. Both these Writ
Petitions were decided by way of a common order dated
03.03.2023 by the learned Single Judge, which has given rise
to the present litigation.
4.
In a well-considered decision, the learned Single Judge dismissed the
private respondent’s Writ Petition (consequently, the appellant’s Writ
Petition was adjudged infructuous). At the outset, the learned Single
Judge notes that the private respondent had not challenged the
subsequent advertisement no.14 dated 11.12.2020 in its entirety,
but only insofar as it reserved the DSP post under the ‘SC Sports’
category for women. It was also noticed that even though the private

respondent had applied in the earlier round under advertisement
no.08 and he did not apply under the subsequent advertisement
no.14 in light of the leeway given to candidates who had already
applied, his application must be considered under advertisement
no.14 dated 11.12.2020, which did not have any post for DSP ‘SC
Sports’ (since the only DSP post against the ‘SC Sports’ category
came to be reserved for women under the 2020 Rules). There was no
post other than Deputy Superintendent (Jails)/DPO ‘SC Sports’ for
which the private respondent’s application could be considered.
Resultantly, the private respondent (i.e., the Petitioner before the
High Court) cannot be appointed to a post i.e. DSP ‘SC Sports’ which
was reserved for ‘SC Sports (Women)’. Meanwhile the private
respondent who had in any case made the selections, joined the post
of Deputy Superintendent (Jails), albeit under protest.
5.
The learned Single Judge highlighted the fact that the roster points
fixed by government communication dated 29.01.2021 came only
after the last date for submission of applications under the fresh
advertisement no.14, which was 30.12.2020. Further, the State
government never revised/reviewed the requisition in light of the
roster, and hence, the requisition for one DSP post for ‘SC Sports
(Woman)’ continued.
6.
The private respondent challenged this order of the learned Single
Judge by filing a Letters Patent Appeal, which went before the

Division Bench of the High Court.
7. The Division Bench laid emphasis on the contradictory stand adopted
by two departments of the State government before the learned
Single Judge during the proceedings in the Writ Petition(s). While
the Home Department took the view that the DSP post was reserved,
for the ‘SC Sports (Women)’ category, the Department of Social
Justice was of the view that the DSP post in question should be
reserved for ‘SC Sports’ (in other words, it should not be reserved for
women alone). The Division Bench was of the opinion that the
learned Single Judge accepted the stand taken by the Home
Department while arriving at his decision. The Division Bench,
however, called upon the Chief Secretary of Punjab to resolve the
conflict between the stands taken by the two above-mentioned
Departments of the State Government. The Chief Secretary
supported the stand of the Department of Social Justice, on the
ground that a mistake had crept into the advertisement no.14, and
that the DSP post should have been reserved for ‘SC Sports’, and not
‘SC Sports (Women)’.
8.
In light of the stand taken by the Chief Secretary, the Division Bench
remanded the matter to the learned Single Judge for fresh
adjudication of both the Writ Petitions (filed by the appellant and
private respondent, respectively). This is the order which has been
challenged before us by the appellant.
9.
Sri P.S. Patwalia, learned Senior Counsel, appearing for the appellant,

would submit that the learned Single Judge had considered the
contradictory stands taken by the Home Department and
Department of Social Justice before passing a well-reasoned order,
which the Division Bench ought not to have interfered with. Learned
Senior Counsel further argues that the stand of the Chief Secretary
before the Division Bench is incorrect since the roster was issued
nearly two months after the last date of submitting application
forms under the advertisement no.14 expired, and it cannot be
implemented retrospectively. The learned Senior Counsel would also
argue that the principle applicable to horizontal reservation is
different from the one applied to vertical reservation and horizontal
reservation has no concept of ‘roster system’, where only vertical
reservation applies.
10.
On the other hand, Sri Gurminder Singh, learned Senior Counsel
representing the private respondent, would argue that the
advertisement no.14 of 11.12.2020 is violative of the 2020 Rules to
begin with. Vertical reservations in terms of the 2020 Rules have to
be within each horizontal category, and the reservation of one post
for DSP for women within the SC category cannot be sustained in
the eyes of the law. The learned Senior Counsel would also place
reliance on the amendment to the 2020 Rules, in terms of which
33% reservation for women has to be as per roster points introduced
on 29.02.2021. Hence, it is incorrect to state that the roster points

would not apply to the advertisement no.14 because the roster
points apply from the date of the amendment to the 2020 Rules.
11.
Sri Rajat Bharadwaj, learned Additional Advocate General appearing
for the State of Punjab, would submit that this appeal deserves to be
dismissed since it has been filed prematurely, because all that the
Division Bench did by way of the impugned order was direct a fresh
adjudication of the matter on merits in light of what had been
submitted by the Chief Secretary of the State. On merits, the
learned Additional Advocate General fully supported the stand taken
by the Chief Secretary before the Division Bench, which was that the
DSP post in question was erroneously reserved for ‘SC Sports
(Woman’), and as a result, the advertisement no.14 deserves to be
withdrawn and a fresh advertisement issued.
12.
Regarding reservations for women the learned counsel for the private
respondent would argue that although the 2020 Rules provide the
percentage of reservation for women to be 33%, these have not been
correctly applied. This issue was highlighted by the DGP while
sending the fresh requisition pursuant to which the subsequent
advertisement no.14 of 11.12.2020 was issued. It is the case of the
private respondent that in the absence of roster points under the
original (unamended) 2020 Rules, which 2 posts out of the 7 DSP
posts under the SC category would be reserved for women was not
clear. Hence, the requisition itself was premature since the manner

of reservation of posts for women within the scheme of vertical
reservation was not yet finalized. The private respondent would thus
seek to convince this Court that the manner in which 33%
reservations are to be provided to women was under active
consideration by the State government when the fresh advertisement
no.14 of 11.12.2020 was issued.
13. The private respondent draws our attention to the amendment to the
2020 Rules, notified on 29.12.2020 (i.e. one day before the last date
for submitting application forms under advertisement no.14), which
provided for the manner of implementing 33% reservation for women
as per roster points provided in Annexure ‘A’. According to this, no
reservation for women is provided for the ‘SC Sports’, but the State
government failed to amend the advertisement and carry out the
changes in advertisement no.14. Furthermore, the amendment to
the 2020 Rules and the notification introducing the roster points
were never challenged by any party before any Court, and have thus
attained finality. The implementation of the roster system of
29.01.2021 introduced in pursuance of the Amendment to the 2020
Rules would not amount to a retrospective application of the same
since substitution of a provision results in repeal of the earlier
provision, i.e., old rule ceases to exist and the new rule is brought
into existence in its place. In other words, the roster system takes
effect from 29.12.2020, i.e., before the last date of submission of

applications under advertisement no.14, since that is the day on
which the 2020 Rules were amended. The private respondent also
argues that advertisement no.14 of 11.12.2020 was an extension of
the earlier advertisement no.08 of 04.06.2020, since the manner of
implementation of the 2020 Rules was never clarified by the State
government earlier. The State government is bound to follow
Statutory Rules and not the advertisement which in this case is
contrary to the 2020 Rules. Further, by participating in the
selection process, the private respondent accepted the prescribed
procedure. Lastly, the private respondent argues that even if he is
appointed to the post of DSP SC Sports, the appellant will be
appointed DSJ SC Sports (post which he presently occupies).
14.
Heard all the parties and perused the material on record.
15.
The Chief Secretary of the State filed an affidavit on directions of the
Division Bench to the effect that the DSP post in question was
erroneously reserved for ‘SC Sports (Woman)’ and the advertisement
no.14 deserves to be withdrawn and a fresh advertisement issued.
But the fact is that this was never done. In fact, even the private
respondent did not challenge the advertisement no.14 in its entirety
(nor did anyone else). Hence, the advertisement no.14 dated
11.12.2020 holds the field and it is only under this advertisement
that the respective rights of the appellant and private respondent
can be determined.
16.
The roster on which the private respondent is relying upon came later,

on 29.01.2021, even after the last date for submitting applications
under the subsequent advertisement no.14 of 11.12.2020 had
passed. Hence, it cannot influence the rights and entitlements of
those who had applied and taken part in the recruitment process
under the advertisement no.14 of 11.12.2020. The recruitment
process had begun with the publication of the advertisement calling
for applications and the process ends with filling of the vacancies.
The selection process had begun and midway changes could not
have taken place.
17.
As per advertisement no.14 dated 11.12.2020, there was only one post
of DSP against ‘SC Sports’, which was reserved for women under the
2020 Rules, when 33% reservation was mandated for women. The
private respondent simply cannot be appointed to this post.
18.
It must be remembered that the private respondent participated in the
entire recruitment process without protest, and made a
representation only after the merit list was released by the Public
Service Commission. Though the private respondent was not
exempted from applying afresh pursuant to advertisement no.14 of
11.12.2020, it was not open for the private respondent to plead
ignorance of the terms of the advertisement at such a belated stage.
19.
What is important to be noted here is that the present Petitioner
applied under the category “SC Sports (Women)” which we may add,
at the cost of repetition, was a category created pursuant to the
2020 Rules, in order to meet the mandate of reservation of 33%

seats for women. The private respondent on the other hand, applied
under the category “SC Sports (80).”
20.
Consequently, both the Petitioner as well as the private respondent
came be selected against their respective categories. On 26.04.2022,
private respondent was appointed as Deputy Superintendent (Jails)
and on 10.03.2023. The Petitioner being the only SC Sports
(Women) to have qualified is now likely to be given the post of DSP.
21.
We have already taken note of the two contradictory stances which
were taken by the Department of Home and the Department of
Social Justice, Empowerment & Minorities, which prompted the
Division Bench to direct the Chief Secretary to bury the hatchet. On
the other hand, the learned Single Judge proceeded to decide the
issue by accepting the stance taken by the Department of Home
which was that the post of DSP was rightly reserved against the
category “SC Sports (Women)” on which the Petitioner was selected.
We are in agreement with the findings of the learned Single Judge
for the reason that once an eligibility criteria was declared by means
of a fresh Advertisement i.e. Advertisement No. 14 dated 11.12.2020,
the same cannot be changed midway through the recruitment
process, as the same would tantamount to ‘ changing the rules of the
game, after the game is played ’ as held by this Court in
K.
Manjusree v. State of A.P. , (2008) 3 SCC 512 .
22.
We must also take note of the fact that the correctness of K.
Manjusree (supra) was doubted by a three-Judge Bench of this

Court in Tej Prakash Pathak v. High Court of Rajasthan , (2013)
4 SCC 540 and the matter was referred to a Constitution Bench,
which ultimately, held that K. Manjusree (supra) is good law which
still holds the field and it is not at variance with earlier precedents
and hence, the salutary principle laid down in K. Manjusree (supra)
that the State or its instrumentalities cannot tinker with the ‘ rules
of the game ’ once the recruitment process commences was
ultimately upheld by the five-Judge Constitution Bench in Tej
Prakash Pathak v. High Court of Rajasthan , (2025) 2 SCC 1 .

23.
Once it is accepted that the DSP post in question was reserved for ‘SC
Sports (Women)’ as per advertisement no.14 of 11.12.2020, the
appellant must be accepted as the only person qualified in her
category who could be appointed. This is because she is the only SC
woman candidate who successfully cleared all the tests for the post
of DSP.

24.
The crucial date in the present case is the advertisement dated
11.12.2020. This advertisement follows the 2020 Rules where 33%
of reservation was to be made for women on every government post.
Thus, DSP SC Sports was reserved for women. This was mentioned
in the advertisement dated 11.12.2020. This advertisement or the
2020 Rules were never challenged. The respondents now cannot cry
foul referring to an event post 11.12.2020 where the so called roster
system came into existence. We have not even considered the need
to examine the legality of this roster in principle. Sufficient will it be
for our purpose to hold that post 11.12.2020 no change could have
been made.
25. We thus allow the appeal and set aside the impugned order passed by
the Division Bench, by upholding the order of the learned Single
Judge dated 03.03.2023. The directions given in the judgment
dated 03.03.2023 shall be complied within three weeks from today.
26.
Pending application(s), if any, stand(s) disposed of.
27.
Interim order(s), if any, stand(s) vacated.

………………………………, J.
[SUDHANSHU DHULIA]
28.
………………………………, J.
[K. VINOD CHANDRAN]
NEW DELHI;
APRIL 9, 2025.

ITEM NO.1501 COURT NO.9 SECTION IV-B
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 17747/2023
[Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 18-07-2023
in LPA No. 287/2023 passed by the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at
Chandigarh]
PRABHJOT KAUR Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
THE STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS. Respondent(s)
(IA No. 168037/2023 - PERMISSION TO FILE ADDITIONAL
DOCUMENTS/FACTS/ANNEXURES

Date : 09-04-2025 This matter was called on for pronouncement of
Judgment today.
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. P. S. Patwalia, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Anurag Kulharia, Adv.
Mr. Sumit Kumar Sharma, Adv.
Dr. Navya Jannu, Adv.
Ms. Aakriti Jain, AOR
Mr. Rajat Sangwan, Adv.
Mr. Shikhar Narwal, Adv.

For Respondent(s) : Mr. Rajat Bhardwaj, A.A.G.
Mr. Karan Sharma, AOR

Mr. Gurminder Singh, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Raj Kishor Choudhary, AOR
Mr. Shakeel Ahmed, Adv.
Mr. Lalit Singla, Adv.
Ms. Pratibha Singh, Adv.
Mr. Himanshu Gupta, Adv.

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia pronounced the reportable
Judgment of the Bench comprising His Lordship and Hon’ble Mr.
Justice K. Vinod Chandran.
Leave granted.
The appeal is allowed.
Pending interlocutory application(s), if any, is/are disposed
of.
(JAYANT KUMAR ARORA) (RENU BALA GAMBHIR)
ASTT. REGISTRAR-cum-PS ASSISTANT REGISTRAR
(Signed reportable Judgment is placed on the file)